1. bookVolume 46 (2021): Issue 2 (June 2021)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
24 Oct 2012
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Applying Data Envelopment Analysis Principle in Ordinal Multi Criteria Decision Analysis

Published Online: 17 Jun 2021
Page range: 147 - 157
Received: 18 Feb 2021
Accepted: 17 Mar 2021
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
24 Oct 2012
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

We consider a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) problem where importance of criteria, and evaluations of alternatives with respect to the criteria, are expressed on a qualitative ordinal scale. Using the extreme-point principle of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), we develop a two-parameter method for obtaining overall ratings of the alternatives when preferences and evaluations are made on an ordinal scale. We assume no parametric setup other than the two parameters that reflect minimum intensities of discriminating among rank positions: one parameter for the alternatives’ ranking and one for the criteria ranking. These parameters are bounded by the ordinal input data, and they imply a universal tie among the alternatives when both parameters are selected to be zero. We describe the model, discuss its theoretical underpinning, and demonstrate its application.

Keywords

[1] Alfares H. K. and Duffuaa, S. O. 2009. Assigning Cardinal Weights in Multi-Criteria Decision Making Based on Ordinal Ranking. J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. 15: 125-133. Search in Google Scholar

[2] Allen, I. E. and Seaman C. A. 2007. Likert scale and data analyses. Quality Progress 64-65. Search in Google Scholar

[3] Atwater, B., and Uzdzinski, J. 2014. Wholistic Sustainment Maturity: The Extension of System Readiness Methodology across all Phasesof the Lifecycle of a Complex System. Procedia Computer Science 28, 601-609. Search in Google Scholar

[4] Belton, V. and Stewart, T. J. 2001. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integreated Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

[5] Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Rhodes, E. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2: 429-444. Search in Google Scholar

[6] Cook, W. D. and Kress, M. 1991. A multiple criteria decision model with ordinal preference data. European Journal of Operational Research 54: 191-198. Search in Google Scholar

[7] Cook, W. D. and Kress, M. 1996. An extreme-point approach for obtaining weighted ratings in qualitative multicriteria decision making. Naval Research Logistics 43: 519-531. Search in Google Scholar

[8] Fasolo, B. and Bana e Costa, C. A. 2014. Tailoring Value Elicitation to Decision Makers’ Numeracy and Fluency: Expressing Value Judgments in Numbers or Words. Omega 44: 83-90. Search in Google Scholar

[9] Garcia-Lapresta, J. L. and Gonzales del Pozo, R. 2019. An Ordinal Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Procedure Under Imprecise Linguistic Assessments. European Journal of Operational Research 279 (1): 159-167. Search in Google Scholar

[10] Garcia-Lapresta, J. L. and Perez-Roman, D. 2018. Aggregating Opinions in Non-Uniform Ordered Qualitative Scales. Applied Soft Computing 67: 652-657. Search in Google Scholar

[11] Gomes, L. F. A. M., Mury, A. R. and Gomes, C. F. S. 1997. Multicriteria ranking with ordinal data. Systems Analysis Modelling Simulation 27 (2-3): 139-145. Search in Google Scholar

[12] Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E. and Martinez, L. 2008. A Fuzzy Linguistic Methodology to Deal with Unbalanced Linguistic Term Sets. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 16: 354-370. Search in Google Scholar

[13] Herrera-Viedma, E. and Lopez-Herrera, A. G. 2007. A Model of an Information Retrieval System with Unbalanced Fuzzy Linguistic Information. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22: 1197-1214. Search in Google Scholar

[14] Koksalan, M., Karwan, M. H. and Zionts, S. 1988. An approach for solving discrete alternative multiple criteria problems involving ordinal data. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 35: 625-642. Search in Google Scholar

[15] Larichev, O. I., and Brown, R. 2000. Numerical and Verbal Decision Analysis: Comparison on Practical Cases. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 9: 263-274. Search in Google Scholar

[16] Larichev, O. I. 1992. Cognitive validity in design of decision-aiding techniques. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 1 (3): 127-138. Search in Google Scholar

[17] Likert, R. 1932. A Technique for the Measure of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology 22 (140): 1-55. Search in Google Scholar

[18] Marichal, J-L and Roubens, M. 2000. Determination of weights of interacting criteria from a reference set. European Journal of Operational Research 124 (3): 641-650. Search in Google Scholar

[19] Moshkovich, H.M., Mechitov, A.I., Olson, D.L. 2002. Ordinal judgments in multiattribute decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 137 625-641. Search in Google Scholar

[20] Punkka, A., and Salo, A. 2013. Preference Programming with incomplete ordinal information. European Journal of Operational Research 231 141-150. Search in Google Scholar

[21] Roubens, M. 1982. Preference relations on actions and criteria in multicriteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 10: 51-55. Search in Google Scholar

[22] Saaty, T. L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGrow Hill. Search in Google Scholar

[23] Salo, A. and Punkka, A. 2005. Rank inclusion in criteria hierarchies. European Journal of Operational Research 163 (2): 338-356. Search in Google Scholar

[24] Xu, X. 2001. A multiple criteria ranking procedure based on distance between partial preorders. European Journal of Operational Research 133 (1): 69-80. Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo